Dawkins defends comments about "Alien Designers".

The Khmer Rouge wasn't against religion in general:



Article 20 Every citizen of Kampuchea has the right to worship according to any religion and the right not to worship according to any religion.


Reactionary religions which are detrimental to Democratic Kampuchea and Kampuchean people are absolutely forbidden.​

(Honorary Red Flag Letter to the Central Committee, 1977)​



Check and mate.
 
The Khmer Rouge wasn't against religion in general:


Article 20 Every citizen of Kampuchea has the right to worship according to any religion and the right not to worship according to any religion.


Reactionary religions which are detrimental to Democratic Kampuchea and Kampuchean people are absolutely forbidden.

(Honorary Red Flag Letter to the Central Committee, 1977)



Check and mate.

Yeah neither was the Soviet Union. Athiests don't lie?:rolleyes:

Fact: they destroyed the churches, killed Muslim clerics and decimated Buddhist monks from 80,000 to 3,000.

Who cares what they SAID? Look at what they DID!
 
Obviously not out of atheism, but because they felt those institutions were a threat to socialist revolution, as I have been saying all along.
 
Obviously not out of atheism, but because they felt those institutions were a threat to socialist revolution, as I have been saying all along.

:roflmao:

You mean like the Jews were a threat to German economy.
 
Wait I have one more:

The United States does not torture. :D

I can't believe youre falling back on propaganda to support your case.

You know, until atheists accept that they can be vulnerable to ideological genocide, I'm not going to consider them as anything but delusional idiots. ;)
 
SAM said:
Obviously not out of atheism, but because they felt those institutions were a threat to socialist revolution, as I have been saying all along.



You mean like the Jews were a threat to German economy.
Exactly.

With the difference that Pol Pot was apparently, individually, atheist - unlike Hitler, who was apparently not.

Which seems to make a big difference to you, for some reason. If you are arguing that evil people who get their hands on the machinery of organized theistic religion (or any other large social organization free of reason's restraint) are magnified in their capabilities, no one will object. If you are arguing that the atheist ones are evil because they are atheist you have to make some kind of different case.

It's not impossible - one could, for example, argue that the more cynical the adherence of the Evil Power Seeker to the religion being used, the more likely success and consequent evil will be theirs in their ambition. But that is not an argument against Dawkins's objections to theism.

Instead, you undermine your own arguments with stuff like this:
SAM said:
Wait I have one more:

The United States does not torture.
A statement made, and a reality created, by the most flagrant theists ever to hod power in the US government.

Meanwhile, the correlation between personal physical stature and evil-doing, in Great Leaders, is better attested than that between personal physical theism and evil-doing.

btw: Most atheists easily agree that atheists can commit ideological genocide. The ideology involved will not be "atheism", however - at least, no sign of that in history or current trends.

As far as being vulnerable to ideological "genocide" - of that we have several examples.
 
Last edited:
Well personally, I think Dawkins does more harm than good. He's like the well meaning fool, who is so interested in pursuing his own ideological goals that he's blind to the repercussions and consequences. I don't think he will do anything for furthering science. Quite teh reverse possibly, by alienating all thiests, moderate or extreme. And I think he will do even less for humanity.
 
SAM said:
Well personally, I think Dawkins does more harm than good.
That would be better argued from someone who appeared to have read his stuff and have some idea of what he was doing.
 
That would be better argued from someone who appeared to have read his stuff and have some idea of what he was doing.

Rather than gauge the active anti-theism effect of his "teachings" you mean? Does anyone disagree that he is an anti-theist?

Stuff like this:

I reject the idea that it is or ever can be a bad thing to be passionate in one's convictions. On the contrary, I think ordinary people respond to passionately held beliefs defended strongly, and will usually come to respect such positions regardless of whether they agree with them.

just makes my head spin.
 
Last edited:
You think its a coincidence that it was repeated from the Soviet Union, to China, to Cambodia to Vietnam to North Korea and always resulted in forbidding religion and killing believers? And that in some of these places, people are still forbidden to worship openly on pain of persecution?

Of course athiest do it! They are require by their atheist holy books to do it! Just like when different religions kill each other athiest group together, read from their holy text that puts them all in a singular mind funk bent on hate and they go burn them selfs some believers on stakes!

(rather everyone kills each other, for any excuse imaginable, its human and has nothing to do with theism or atheism)
 
Of course athiest do it! They are require by their atheist holy books to do it! Just like when different religions kill each other athiest group together, read from their holy text that puts them all in a singular mind funk bent on hate and they go burn them selfs some believers on stakes!

(rather everyone kills each other, for any excuse imaginable, its human and has nothing to do with theism or atheism)

So it would appear that books are unnecessary. Since not only did atheists in the absence of any scripture kill millions, but repeated it over and over without the slightest remorse or reparation.
 
Well personally, I think Dawkins does more harm than good. He's like the well meaning fool, who is so interested in pursuing his own ideological goals that he's blind to the repercussions and consequences. I don't think he will do anything for furthering science. Quite teh reverse possibly, by alienating all thiests, moderate or extreme. And I think he will do even less for humanity.

hehe, it's hilarious when the deluded devise silly notions they are unable to support, especially when they want to support their own hypocrisy.
 
So it would appear that books are unnecessary. Since not only did atheists in the absence of any scripture kill millions, but repeated it over and over without the slightest remorse or reparation.

You have difficult separating out sarcasm? But you did seem to figure out what I was saying at least mostly, its not a matter of books or belief, genocide is just human nature, I'm sure your aware of the millenia records of religious genocide so I don't see why you might believe athiest are the only ones that do it.
 
SAM said:
Rather than gauge the active anti-theism effect of his "teachings" you mean? Does anyone disagree that he is an anti-theist?
Odd to see a religious theist confuse "anti-theism" with "anti-theist" - isn't that one of the big distinctions that supposedly lets all these theistic religions off the hook for their mass crimes and horrible atrocities ?

But Dawkins has not been fulminating against theists as a category of people, at least not in anything I've read. He is arguing that theisms have certain flaws in common, as political philosophies and especially as approaches to understanding of the natural world, and that people are often victims of them in various ways.

SAM said:
Since not only did atheists in the absence of any scripture kill millions, but repeated it over and over without the slightest remorse or reparation.
Hmmm. Aside from accusing certain Great Leaders of personal atheism and ideologies of focused anti-Church bigotry, you have been sort of missing that specific issue.

Dawkins has been a bit better targeted, there. If you read his actual writings , say in "The God Delusion", he addresses your apparent concerns directly.
 
Nope. The author is a "professor" (hilarious) of the Jesuit University of New York. He is a full-blown theist. What the fuck did you expect?

Typical bullshit from you, Sam. Knee-jerk reactions. Insulting, at best.
 
Dawkins does not defend alien designers. He merely states that Panspermia cannot be an answer as that lifeform would have had to evolve as well.

Indeed. :)

You know, until atheists accept that they can be vulnerable to ideological genocide, I'm not going to consider them as anything but delusional idiots.

Yes, because not believing in a God, even if that is out of a well thought out assessment of whether there is evidence, automatically makes you a delusional idiot.
 
Odd to see a religious theist confuse "anti-theism" with "anti-theist" - isn't that one of the big distinctions that supposedly lets all these theistic religions off the hook for their mass crimes and horrible atrocities ?

But Dawkins has not been fulminating against theists as a category of people, at least not in anything I've read. He is arguing that theisms have certain flaws in common, as political philosophies and especially as approaches to understanding of the natural world, and that people are often victims of them in various ways.

You mean the part where he says religious people suck dummies is arguing against flaws in theisms? Or is it the part where he says that moderate theists are also delusional and should be included in the noble war of reason against faith?:rolleyes:

In fact some of his statements are very telling:

Richard Dawkins said:
When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told — religious Jews anyway — than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.

He is clearly interested in using his atheism to interfere with state and social policy.
Hmmm. Aside from accusing certain Great Leaders of personal atheism and ideologies of focused anti-Church bigotry, you have been sort of missing that specific issue.

Dawkins has been a bit better targeted, there. If you read his actual writings , say in "The God Delusion", he addresses your apparent concerns directly.

Its interesting how he cherry picks the actions of theists and ignores the fact that sans scriptures atheists have been willing to go much further to promote their ideologies. Especially considering his own desire to influence policy, not only at the level of state but also at the level of family.

What next, atheists bicycling door to door with a copy of his book?:rolleyes:


You have difficult separating out sarcasm? But you did seem to figure out what I was saying at least mostly, its not a matter of books or belief, genocide is just human nature, I'm sure your aware of the millenia records of religious genocide so I don't see why you might believe athiest are the only ones that do it.

Well athiests appear to be especially good at it, wouldn't you say? Must be the larger forebrain as evidenced by the superior rational thinking. :p



Nope. The author is a "professor" (hilarious) of the Jesuit University of New York. He is a full-blown theist. What the fuck did you expect?

Typical bullshit from you, Sam. Knee-jerk reactions. Insulting, at best.

My dear (Q), you are supposed to read the article.


Like this:

H. Allen Orr is an evolutionary biologist who once called Mr. Dawkins a “professional atheist.” But now, Mr. Orr wrote in the Jan. 11 issue of The New York Review of Books, “I’m forced, after reading his new book, to conclude that he’s actually more of an amateur.”

Terry Eagleton, better known as a Marxist literary scholar than as a defender of faith, took on “The God Delusion.”

“Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds,” Mr. Eagleton wrote, “and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.” ...Dawkins on God is rather like those right-wing Cambridge dons who filed eagerly into the Senate House some years ago to non-placet Jacques Derrida for an honorary degree. Very few of them, one suspects, had read more than a few pages of his work, and even that judgment might be excessively charitable. Yet they would doubtless have been horrified to receive an essay on Hume from a student who had not read his Treatise of Human Nature. There are always topics on which otherwise scrupulous minds will cave in with scarcely a struggle to the grossest prejudice. For a lot of academic psychologists, it is Jacques Lacan; for Oxbridge philosophers it is Heidegger; for former citizens of the Soviet bloc it is the writings of Marx; for militant rationalists it is religion.
 
Last edited:
He is clearly interested in using his atheism to interfere with state and social policy.

As opposed to the status quo of theism interfering with state and social policy? :rolleyes:

Its interesting how he cherry picks the actions of theists...

A cherry tree usually won't bare fruit every minute of every day of every century...

What next, atheists bicycling door to door with a copy of his book?:rolleyes:

cbkmobile.jpg
 
Back
Top